The NCAA has faced challenges in court lately, but in a recent legal filing, it argues that Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia should not be granted a preliminary injunction that would extend his eligibility through the 2025-26 season.
Last Friday, the NCAA submitted a 37-page opposition to the injunction in a federal court in Tennessee. The brief was prepared by Taylor J. Askew and other attorneys from Holland & Knight and Wilkinson Stekloff, presenting several counterarguments against Pavia and his lawyers, Ryan Downton and Salvador M. Hernandez.
Pavia, who is 23, argues that NCAA rules penalizing his two seasons at junior college New Mexico Military Institute and capping junior college transfers at three years violate antitrust laws. His NCAA eligibility is set to end after the 2024-25 season, which would exclude him from potential NIL deals in 2025-26. Pavia claims these deals could enhance his personal brand and reputation, offering him opportunities beyond professional football. This season, he has performed impressively for the Commodores, throwing for 2,029 yards with 16 touchdown passes and just three interceptions.
However, the NCAA posits that Pavia hasn’t demonstrated the necessity for a preliminary injunction, stating that he was aware of the relevant rules long before and could have challenged them earlier but chose to wait until late in the 2024-25 season to file a case. The NCAA asserts, “The law does not allow him to create an emergency by delaying his lawsuit.”
Additionally, the NCAA argues that Pavia hasn’t shown he risks irreparable harm, a key criterion for an injunction. Typically, irreparable harm refers to damage that cannot be adequately resolved with monetary compensation. The NCAA claims that should Pavia be denied the injunction, his wish to earn NIL income would not equate to irreparable injury since financial losses could be calculated and compensated later if he proves eligibility for the 2025-26 season.
Pavia is likely to contest the NCAA’s characterization of irreparable harm. The NFLPA previously cited a 2017 case related to Ezekiel Elliott’s suspension, noting that depriving professional athletes of their ability to play leads to irreparable harm. Missing games and practices is time lost that cannot be regained, affecting players’ careers and development.
While Pavia is not a conventional professional athlete, college players can now earn NIL compensation, and if a recent House settlement succeeds, they may receive direct payments from colleges based on sponsorships and media rights. A federal district judge, Clifton Corker, recently issued an injunction against the NCAA concerning rules that limit NIL-related recruitment, stating that athletes have a limited timeframe to negotiate such deals.
The NCAA’s brief also references recent federal court decisions that have upheld its eligibility rules. For instance, a judge in Illinois denied motions from former Overtime Elite players Matt and Ryan Bewley, who argued that receiving salaries in OTE should not disqualify them from NCAA eligibility. The judge emphasized that NIL must relate to commercial compensation, not employment benefits, and recognized the NCAA’s role in preserving the uniqueness of college sports.
The NCAA also cited the case of Reese Brantmeier v. NCAA, where a North Carolina judge rejected a University of North Carolina tennis player’s request to block the NCAA’s prize money restrictions. The court found the NCAA’s justifications compelling and noted that only a few elite athletes are affected. The NCAA argues that Pavia’s situation is similar, as it believes only a small number of elite Division 1 football players are impacted by the rules he challenges.
In future court filings, Pavia is expected to respond to the NCAA’s references to the Bewley and Brantmeier cases. He may contend that the Bewleys’ situation is not applicable to him, as he has not participated in a professional league and has complied with NCAA regulations. Regarding Brantmeier, Pavia could argue that it concerns individual sports’ prize money and does not apply to his access to NIL deals in football.
Pavia’s case is being heard by Chief U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell Jr. Earlier this month, Campbell denied Pavia a temporary restraining order but indicated that he is aware of Pavia’s need to clarify his plans for 2025.
Leave a Reply